Three studies of AMPD

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) has been around since 2015 although related research goes back to 2003. The DSM-V identifies Criterion A: impairments or deficits in sense of self and interpersonal relatedness; and Criterion B: five domains of negative affectivity, detachment, psychoticism, antagonism, and disinhibition. Today, I want to address three recent studies utilizing it. First, Yalch, Hujing & Hopwood (2023) published “Association Between Maladaptive Personality Traits and Violence Risk” in Journal of Threat Assessment and Management.  Here’s the edited abstract and impact statement:

Previous research has shown that maladaptive personality traits in the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) are associated with potential for violence. AMPD traits can be measured at varying levels of specificity, ranging from broad personality domains to more specific trait facets. The level of abstraction at which traits might be optimal for predicting violence remains unclear. In this study, we used hierarchical principal component analysis to construct a hierarchical structure of AMPD traits and a Bayesian approach to multiple regression to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of traits at different levels of specificity for predicting violence potential in a sample of college students (N = 922). Results suggest that, in general, maladaptive traits account for a large amount of variance in potential for violence and that validity increases with greater complexity in the trait model. These findings add to previous research on the applications of AMPD traits and have implications for the use of these traits in applied risk assessments. 

This study showed that maladaptive aspects of personality are associated with potential for violence among college students. This is especially the case for the trait assessments with either five general traits or 25 specific traits. 

The next study looks more ta daily changes in personality. Roche, Natoli & Moore (2023) published “Personality Dysfunction Linked to Future Aggression in Daily Life: Findings from two experience sampling studies” in Journal of Threat Assessment and Management. Here are the edited abstract and risk statements:

Violence risk assessment has often included personality constructs to better understand pathways toward violence, though most of this work has been done through cross-sectional designs and under the assumption that personality is a static, universally applicable risk factor. The present research uses the alternative model for personality disorders to examine how it is related to aggressive behaviors in daily life and on a day-to-day basis. In two combined 14-daily diary studies (n = 526), baseline personality dysfunction was related to acts of aggression in daily life. Daily and aggregated alternative model for personality disorders psychopathology correlated positively with aggressive behaviors. This study examined how personality dysfunction was related to aggression in daily life, identifying between-person associations (who is likely to be aggressive) and within-person associations (when is aggression more likely). Findings suggest that the likelihood of aggression is higher for individuals with higher personality dysfunction compared to others and on days when personality dysfunction is worse relative to one’s own average. This study underscores the usefulness of measuring aggression risk through an experience sampling methodology capable of capturing temporally dynamic triggers for aggression in daily life. 

This is a large sample and a strong methodology. In a world in which aggressive behaviors are becoming both more prevalent and more deadly, this is important work. The final study looks further at the five traits in Criterion B. Kaurin, Do, Ladouceur, Silk & Wright (2023) published “Daily Manifestations of Caregiver- and Self-Reported Maladaptive Personality Traits in Adolescent Girls” in Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Here’s the edited abstract:

Establishing maladaptive personality traits at a younger age in a developmentally appropriate and clinically tangible way may alert clinicians to dysfunction earlier, and thus reduce the risk of significant impairment later in life. The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) provides a set of traits useful for organizing behavioral and experiential patterns central to daily personality functioning. The goal of the present study was to evaluate manifestations indicative of AMPD traits via ambulatory assessments in the daily lives of adolescent girls. Caregivers and girls (N = 129; age: M = 12.27, SD = 0.80) provided baseline assessments of girls’ trait vulnerabilities (negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, psychoticism) and girls additionally completed a 16-day ecological momentary assessment protocol (N = 5,036 observations), rating social behaviors and experiences in their daily lives. Multilevel structural equation models revealed that trait vulnerabilities were linked to more extreme shifts in interpersonal experiences and behaviors from one moment to the next, suggesting that maladaptive personality traits were linked to greater variability. Furthermore, AMPD traits were positively and strongly related to negative affect in daily interpersonal situations. More specifically, girls’ trait ratings were associated with elevated mean-levels of boredom, as well as interpersonal tension. Caregiver-reports complemented this perspective of dissatisfying social interactions, suggesting that especially detachment and antagonism accounted for lower levels of social connectedness and more variability in social activities in girls’ daily lives. Results are discussed in terms of the short-term dynamics and related intervention targets of developmental personality pathology.

What I like about these studies is the suggestion that assessing the AMPD traits is important. The Kaurin et al. work is especially helpful. It makes perfect sense to me that these traits are associated with greater variability and more negative affect with detachment and antagonism especially important hindrances to positive social interactions.